Curt: I haven't supported you with the Oz in the Doorway stuff, and still don't. But, you nailed this one. I at least will admit that Oswald Not in the Doorway is not 100%.
I appreciate that from Curt, but it's the last part that's got me thinking. I have to wonder why anyone who isn't an Op would reject Oswald in the doorway. To put it another way: What is there to support the claim that Lovelady was Doorman?
The Warren Commission testimonies? Lovelady's own testimony doesn't support it. NOT ONCE did he say that he was Doorman. And all that weird arrow business where he was asked to draw an arrow in the black with a black marker only raises more suspicion. And then the discovery of his arrow pointing to Black Hole Man proves that at that time, he was NOT claiming to be Doorman.
And the fact that they got Frazier and Arce to say that he was Doorman is not so impressive. There were others they could have asked, so why just those two? Was it because they were pre-screened to give the right answer? Then Frazier contradicted himself that very time and even more so later on. He wasn't neither consistent about where he was nor where Lovelady was. HE KEPT CHANGING HIS STORY, and I mean over and over again. These testimonies do NOT support the Lovelady claim. Yet, those testimonies were all the WC relied on to arrive at Oswald in the doorway.
Then after that, you have to fast-forward to the HSCA treatment of the Doorman issue, which screams bloody murder. First, why didn't they subpoena Lovelady? They subpoenaed lots of other people, so why not him? Second, why did they hire Robert Groden? You don't think they did so on the basis of: "whatever you come up with, Bob, is fine with us." They hired Groden. They paid him money. Good money. And before they did, they must have asked him what his position was on the Doorman issue. And he must have told them that he advocated Lovelady as Doorman. And he must have convinced them that he could produce photographic evidence to support it, and that is why they hired him. How did he go about it? For starters, he never once put an image of Oswald side by side with Doorman. Never. Do you realize what that means? And he took pictures of Lovelady in his plaid shirt, but he didn't take them in the doorway. He didn't try to reproduce the Altgens photo, even though he easily could have, just as I easily did. And he even said some thing that were patently false, such as that "on Doorman's shirt he detected a pattern that was more consistent in pattern and color with Lovelady's plaid than Oswald's tweed."
That is a lie! There is nothing remotely plaid about Doorman's shirt. There are no horizontal and vertical lines crossing forming boxes. There is not one box. No boxes. None at all. Groden just plain lied.
And then there were the anthropologists who mostly compared Oswald to Lovelady, which was useless. They only took "scientific measurements" of Oswald and Lovelady and none of Doorman. It was a waste of time. The issue was how well Oswald and Lovelady each compared to Doorman and which of them compared better. In the end, they were reduced to "subjective" observations. They correctly cited the hairline match between Doorman and Lovelady, but they failed to raise the issue of photographic alteration to explain it. And everything else they said was a subjective match to Lovelady was false. For instance, they said Doorman's chin made a better match to Lovelady than Oswald. False! They said that Doorman's nose was more bulbous like Lovelady's. False. They said his jaws were a match to Lovelady.
I'll point out that they could have shown their work as I have done: put images side by side with explanations to look here and there to see what they were talking about, but they never did that. Like Robert Groden, the HSCA anthropologists sold-out to their political masters.
So, what really substantiates the claim of Lovelady as Doorman? Nothing. Absolutely Doorman. And when we compare the photos in an honest manner, we see that Oswald wins hands down. In face and body, Oswald makes a much better match to Doorman than Lovelady, plus Doorman is wearing Oswald's clothes. Did you hear what I said? I said: DOORMAN IS WEARING OSWALD'S CLOTHES!
The bottom line is that anyone who studies the evidence honestly and thoroughly has to reach the conclusion that Doorman was Oswald. It isn't even debatable. It isn't even controversial. It comes down to some people telling the truth (us) and others lying (them). That is all there is to this. There is no case for Lovelady as Doorman. Yes, he was in the doorway but not as Doorman. He was next to Doorman.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.